I am an introvert, I hang around online most of the time. But, I've cut off most of the social media in past couple of years, now my online presence is reduced to whatsapp, tildes, youtube and sometimes reddit. I take in news from well respected sources, although most of them are left leaning.

Even after significantly limiting myself from news and social medias I cant help but feel world is getting worse everyday. Climate change, Increasing support for far right politics, increased consumption of fake news/propaganda etc..

I am going through some personal job related issue myself, I don't know what I am working towards. Why the hell should I waste my energy and time if I can't even see a better future? I don't think I am depressed, I am sad and frustrated that I dont have anything to look forward to.

Surely there are people in here who dealt/ dealing with this. How do you cope with this? what do you tell yourself when you see another fuck up from the world?

P.S: English is not my first language.

I'll start here in Brazil (these aren't all the parties BTW):

PT (Workers' party)

The generic center-left party. Likes adding or maintaining public services, likely stained for a generation with Dilma Rousseff being impeached and lula jailed (although he left recently) And badly crashing the economy thanks to Car Wash (although Moro seems to have proven himself to be rather less than impartial and it's not like they were the only ones involved.) They might not if/when Bolsonaro proves himself much worse than anything PT did but right-wing media will do their work here. They're also supported by a lot of people in the rural Brazilian Northeast which is probably pretty religious and conservative, but I don't think we see that in their legislation.

PSDB (Brazilian Social Democratic Party)

Not actually for social democracy, really more of a generic center-right party. Usually privatization/"efficiency" oriented party. Not very socially conservative but not socially liberal. Was going to die thanks to being establised for too long and having a bad record (they had the other impeached president in Brazil) but then Doria rode the Bolsonaro wave, although COVID has shown this a purely electoral move.

PSL (Social Liberal Party)

The current party of our president, although him being incompetent has led to people considering breaking up his party, but he'll just move to another one with a generic feel-good name (alliance for Brazil). Not actually socially liberal (this is a recurring theme), more a generic right-wing populist/Whatever Bolsonaro does party.

Partido Novo (New Party)

Generic capitalist party. It's Founders are owners of large Brazilian banks so I don't really imagine them caring about the actual ideology of classical liberalism and competition/meritocracy too much (even if they throw that term around a lot) and are more focused in big business corporatocracy.

REDE (Web of sustainability)

Generic green/environmentalist party. Was expected too be a frontrunner in the last presidential election but instead only got a sad 1% of the vote in the first round.

PATRIOTA (PATRIOT)

Hyper-Christian militarist party. Unironically wants to write a new constitution with a 'religious character'.

The guy who ran for president under them actually went to a mound in Israel to pray. Absolute meme candidate last election but you never know if next time they run someone serious.

PDT (Democratic "Workerist" Party)

Seems to be the Democratic Socialist/Social democratic analogue to the progressive movement in Brazil but I can't say for sure since people aren't hellbent on policy in any Brazilian circles and most of the most blatant problems in the US aren't as obvious in Brazil.

These are 7/33 political parties.

Fun facts about Braziliian parties: there are Democratic and Republican parties in Brazil and both are right-wing, capitalist parties. How's that for indulging in confirmation bias?

The Green party in Brazil also exists alongside REDE, meaning there are 2 environmentalist parties in Brazil.

There is a Brazilian women's party, but:

• It doesn't describe itself s feminist but 'feminine'

• When it was created it's congress members were 20/2 male

• They all shortly abanoned the party 2 moths later

Impying it's more likely than not some sort of corruption-related scheme.

There are 6 far-left/genuinely socialist parties currently listed;

The Brazilian Communist party

The Unified Socalist Workers' party

Popular unity (?)

The party of the Operary cause

The Communist party of Brazil (???)

Socialism and liberty party

That's a strange lot of infighting for some reason.

Is socialism achievable in our lifetimes? I'm M/29/India. I haven't read Marx or Kropotkin.

1 Honestly, at some point you have to ask yourself: if our economic system doesn't secure public health and well-being, and doesn't protect and regenerate ecology, then what's actually the point?

2 This economic crisis is revealing that the main reason we all have to work for wages isn't just to buy the things we need, but to pay rents and debts - in other words, to give money to the holders of capital.

If capitalism is preventing a large majority of human population from leading happy and dignified lives, then why can't we change the economic system?

I think it's clear that all tildes political discussion leads to intractable arguments. Considering tildes was created to foster high quality discussion, I was wondering if it's even possible to have nuanced political discussions online. In person discussions work for me because I have base levels of respect for all the people I talk to, but that's quite difficult to get online. Are we doomed to snark and condescension filled megathreads, or is there a better way to structure the conversations? Are there additional political ground rules that need to be set up?

From the NY times

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont was reassessing the future of his presidential bid on Wednesday after a crushing round of primary losses left him with no realistic path to the Democratic nomination and the 2020 race itself looked increasingly dormant because of the coronavirus outbreak.

Mr. Sanders’s campaign has stopped actively advertising on Facebook and its campaign manager sent an email to supporters without asking for donations — the kind of steps that other candidates have taken before ending their campaigns. Mr. Sanders’s aides said he is not suspending his campaign at this point, even as some Democrats have become increasingly vocal that he should consider leaving the race.

Even among Democrats who view Mr. Biden’s eventual triumph as inevitable, there is a belief that contested primaries are good for the party, making some of them reluctant to call for Mr. Sanders to withdraw. In Wisconsin, Democratic officials worry that if Mr. Sanders drops out before the state’s planned April 7 primary, it could dampen his supporters’ enthusiasm, depress turnout and hurt progressive candidates for state and local offices.

Mr. Sanders also views the coronavirus crisis as a moment when the progressive agenda he has championed for years is especially vital, and he is eager to leverage his influence for good at a time when issues like health care and economic inequity are so resonant, some allies say.

And top advisers see potential for him to continue to shape the narrative around how the country should be responding to the crisis and are holding out hope that they can harness existing virtual infrastructure to allow him to get his message out and keep his supporters engaged — a tacit admission that the campaign is no longer trying to win.

The above paragraphs show that yes, Sanders knows his electoral situation is done for, despite never clearly indicating if he is dropping out.

Some suggested Mr. Sanders should declare a moral victory — Democrats have moved broadly toward his progressive policy platform since he began his first presidential campaign — and throw his support to Mr. Biden.

“It’s time to throw in the towel knowing that he has won the battle of issues,” said Wilbur Colom, a D.N.C. member from Mississippi. “The Democratic Party has moved within inches of his revolution on all major issues. We all are feeling the Bern.”

From the Star

Charles Chamberlain, chairman of the progressive group Democracy for America, said Sanders can play a potentially “critical” role in unifying the party by continuing his campaign.

“Bernie has already made it clear that he will 100% support the Democratic nominee and that he’s going to campaign for Joe Biden if that’s who it is,” Chamberlain said. “The reality is, that’s not 100% true for all Bernie Sanders supporters. So there is a real value to Bernie staying in the race as long as possible to bring those people into the party deeper.“

That underscores the sensitivity of how Sanders proceeds. Justin Bamberg, a South Carolina state representative and Sanders supporter, said it’s wrong to assume that, if the senator quickly drops out, his backers would unite behind Biden.

“It’s a mistake for the party, regardless of whether the nominee is Biden or Bernie, to think that beating Donald Trump in and of itself will be enough motivation for the average person living their day-to-day life to come out and be excited about voting in November,” Bamberg said.

I agree. Biden needs to emphasize that he can be trusted to keep his promises of endorsing and then carrying out Warren's plan despite their controversies and that the bernie or bust folks won't gain nothing from a Biden presidency.

Admittedly I deleted and re-uploaded this because I was worried I had posted the original thread too soon.

A'ight, here we are. Spreadsheet time.

When will the debate be broadcasted?

The debate will be recorded March 15th, 8-10 PM ET. (1-3 AM UTC)

Where will it happen?

In the CNN studio in Washington DC. Note that they moved it from Phoenix due to the Coronavirus.

Who will moderate it?

Dana Bash and Jake Tapper from CNN and Ilia Calderón from Telemundo.

Where can I watch this?

It will most likely be livestreamed in CNN's YouTube channel. it was livestreamed on CNN's website.

So, what's new and how will this change anything?

This is the first and possibly the last one-on-one debate in the primary between Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden and (also due to Coronavirus concerns) It has no live audience. It will also occur before some of the largest states in the primary vote.

So what do you think should happen? What questions should be asked? What should the candidates do and what should we talk about?

(You could replace FPTP with STV to keep the districts that elect representatives in the house intact.)

I'll start.

The Democratic party breaks up into the neoliberal and progressive parties.

The neoliberal party is where centrist candidates like Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg go.

The progressive party is where progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren go.

The Republican party might lose a large part of their electorate to the libertarians, since many Republicans are more concerned about letting business prevail and don't really want cultural conservatism.

Andrew yang maybe also leaves the Democrats and founds his own party, the party for online reform.

The greens also become significantly more popular but they may have too much in common with the progressives.

The Senate could be changed to include as many seats as the house for proper representation.

I'm Brazilian, and personally (in the most radical, electability-indifferent and honestly meme-y campaign) would go for Bernie with the campaign finance and tax reform but with a platform for civical reform like putting STV as the nomination method for our chamber of deputies and supporting automating or funding new technologies to replace menial labor, like funding lab grown meat to replace all farming companies and labor now or robotics to automate large parts of the industrial and service sectors and use that money saved from not paying wages to people doing bad jobs to fund free universities and better schools/wages/welfare/infrastructure to the people once doing that work, along with adding civics and economics as subjects in school and always including notes as to where do you use the content you're learning, along with requiring subsidiaries to go independent or drop their branding. Clearly this isn't very realistic so feel free to expouse absurd policy.

The nice thing about electability being uncertain is that you can choose the candidate you think is best.

Unfortunately I have lost faith in my ability to decide that. Studying candidates' policies seems useless since, after all, Congress makes the laws. We are likely to see either stalemate or centrist legislation regardless.

Maybe I should decide based on foreign policy instead? Most people don't do that but I don't see why not. Any recommendations for interesting articles to read?

New debate, new thread. (Unfortunately somewhat late as the debate was streamed right at the time I wrote this post.)

The debate was being live streamed in CBS's channel in YouTube.

Twitter is one of the debate partners so expect a few questions from there.

The south Carolina primaries are due February 29th and there willl be no more debates until after super tuesday so this debate is pretty important.

I find this to be a pretty important question when news organizations like Fox News are literally aiming to help the Republican Party to stay on power, CNN and MSNBC promote centrist candidates and media aggregators ranging from r/the_donald to r/chapotraphouse banning anyone who opposes them. Thing is, these are the most well known examples. How could we tell faulty media sources and aggregators apart from good ones in mass? Do you think that's possible?

This is a question I've been thinking about a great deal in the context of changing global power dynamics. Rising authoritarianism, militarism, fundamentalism, and other ailments of our times are getting in the way of dealing with universal threats to humanity, like climate change, pandemics, and even asteroid impacts.

But nationalism has such a grip on people's psyches... Parts are nostalgic, and parts are about tribal sense of belonging and purpose. Tonight, I watched a Chef's Table episode about a young Russian chef on a mission to make Russian cuisine great again (not his words). The interesting thing is that Mukhin essentially acknowledges that he's helping Russian cuisine become great not by denigrating other nation's products, or clinging to an idealized version of his home food, but through intentionally discovering what is worthwhile elsewhere and at home. It got me thinking about what's been lost in a globalized world, what could be found in isolated places, and what it would take to let people bridge local interests and universal values.

I'd also watched Raise Hell: The Life and Times of Molly Ivins over the weekend. Ivins' writing on Texas state politics as a microcosm and foreshadowing of current U.S. concerns is essential. Then I read Citylab's old story on the paralysis of New York subway system development.

It occurred to me that the U.S. has become fractally parochial, with increasingly local or corporate interests thwarting any exercise favoring broader national or regional goods. The original framing of the nation in the U.S. Constitution has significant flaws because of the original tension between sovereign state interests, and the federal system. We're not learning from the rest of the world very well, either.

I'm curious about whether Tilders think there's such a thing as positive nationalism, capable of both unifying localities and maintaining or growing what's good about a culture in the face of potentially hostile competing nations.

• Do you think there are positive aspects to nationalism, and if so, what?

• Do you think nationalism has been, on balance, a positive or negative force in your country in the past?

• Do you think nationalism is, on balance, a positive or negative force in your country right now?

• Do you think your country could have a positive version of nationalism in the future?

• Is it necessary to exclude or mitigate influences from elsewhere in order to maintain the original nature of your national culture?

If I may ask, please include your nationality when responding.

An odd question to ask, I'll admit, but I think it's worth asking.

It's hard to have a public conversation today about political or politicised topics because people will pipe up and tell you that you're crazy and your ideas are completely backwards. And the reason why people say this is often driven by conflicts between personally held values rather than the ideas themselves. As a result, these conversations usually end up with both sides arguing past eachother and no concensus is ever made; nobody is happy.

One of the more common reasons for these arguements is typically because one party believes in egalitarianism - the belief that all people should be treated the same - and the other one does not. It's particularly strange to see given that so many countries have egalitarianism as a cornerstone to their government and laws. Yet we still see many people trying to take away rights and freedoms from certain classes of people.

Regardless of any particular conversation, what do you think is the best way to convince someone in the value of egalitarianism? How do you convince someone that they're not part of a higher class who has power over another?

Just a question. Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, and the rest of them saying they already have a vote against removal of Donald before a court appearance.

Sorry if this is the wrong sub tilde for this. It just pisses me off.

"'I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here': Graham predicts Trump impeachment will 'die quickly'" in Senate https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/14/politics/lindsey-graham-trump-impeachment-trial/index.html

Admittedly highly unlikely ... but also becoming less inconceivable by the day. She is 2nd in line after Pence.

So, let's just say, 3-5 months from now, They swear in Pelosi as the next POTUS. What does that do to both Repub and Dem Primaries? What does it mean for the next election? Does the US keep itself together long enough to have an election?

Heck, while I'm asking, what about a President Pence in 3-5 months. That's at least an order of magnitude less unlikely. How would that play out?

PS: Somebody recently started a 'what do you daydream about' thread ... so, you-know ... this.

Okay, so this notion is still a bit undefined in my head, kind of figuring it out now, as I type.

I want to come up with a list (doesn't actually have to be 10) of the worst things the US government has done, to undermine the ideals and principles that the United States was (at least nominally) founded on ... truth, justice, baseball and mom's apple pie - kinda stuff.

You can go back as far in history as you like (so Civil War, Dred Scott, things like that are absolutely open for consideration) ... but it has to be something that continues to significantly impact US govt, US society and/or the world, to this day ... something they have not remedied.

Off the top of my head, the main thing that comes to mind is the Citizens United case, which I believe has fundamentally broken the US political system (which was, previously, already seriously frayed). I'd also consider the non-consideration (by the Senate) of Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination (by Obama), and the US (both the govt and the public) collective "whatever" to the news that Russia interfered in the 2016 US elections (and continues to do so, now joined by China and assorted others).

I may edit this to refine the idea. But the basic goal is to create a really high-level list of "First Things" the US needs to fix, to have any hope of returning to a state of democracy (okay, democratic republic), and/or normalcy.

I'm reading about the latest Gitlab shakeup, about (not?) filtering customers on moral grounds. Yesterday, it was Github's decision to continue to support ICE. There's Twitter's decision to allow politicians to (somewhat?) violate its own rules about threats and harrassment. Blizzard banned a star video game player for speaking out about the Hong Kong protests.

I'm on Mastodon, and while it's faded from the headlines a bit, the Gab-war still rages there, with the Tusky-v-Fediverse debate over apps blocking domains, and instances blocking other instances over their support for yet other instances.

Yada.

I'm thinking a lot these days about the "slippery slope". Mastodon, Twitter, Facebook, Github/lab, etc ... these are all business(-like) entities, privately controlled, which are nonetheless approaching the status of public infrastructure ... at least, sort of.

PG&E intentionally shut off power to millions of Californians last week, to prevent hypothetical fires. You see where I'm going with this.

When/As smart capabilities for power grid, ISP, etc emerge, do racists, white supremacists, get Internet? Electricity? Hospital/Ambulance service? Where is that line?

Is reverse discrimination appropriate? "We don't rent to racists..."?

Not sure what I'm expecting here. Just starting the thread, see where it goes.

ETA: A really interesting, thoughtful 2-minute excerpt from a Rogan podcast

Edit #2: The Hacker News thread that prompted me to start this thread.

Reading HackerNews and saw that some mentorship software launched: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20656223 and someone mentioned another software as a service that does mentorship: https://mentorloop.com/

Now I'm wondering where the mentorship for leftists and leftist organizing is.

And I'm wondering if anyone else feels like most of the good ideas that leftists have slowly trickle into businesses but in ways that can be controlled by executives/managers. Their "features" include these slogans:

Tools to Turn Human Resources into Superheroes

Don't let employees slip through the cracks
Stay on top of hundreds to thousands of mentoring interactions in a way that still feels personal. Check in on employee relationships, give them the right nudges they need.

What's your take? Is there a need for more mentorship and peer to peer training/collaboration amongst anarchists and communists? Is that realistic? Or is this something that we just need to be on the defense against and form our own networks outside these systems of control?

~supplementary condorcet voting poll, if you'd like to answer in more nuance and provide some data to compare against when i ask this question later on down the road.~ poll has been closed as the week i said it'd be open has elapsed. thanks folks, and of course feel free to continue replying to this thread,

(foreigners are also welcome to chime in on who they'd vote for if they were eligible)

it's still 200 days to the iowa caucuses, but since this election cycle began literally six months ago already and we already have one debate under the belt, we're probably far enough along in the primary at this point that at least some of the billion candidates trying to run for the coveted position of democratic nominee for president in 2020 are making an impact on you, and nobody has actually asked this on here recently, weirdly enough.

i'll probably ask this question again in... i dunno, three months (so mid-october)? and see what changes between threads (if anything does).

I'm in too much of a left-wing echo chamber, to the point where anything conservative or right wing appears to be 'evil' or not necessarily purely right-wing. For example, conservatives generally promote family values and the family as the foundational unit of a society. But this too often gets grouped together with same/opposite sex marriage arguments. Another point is small government, but that often manifests in deregulation in areas where regulation is now necessary (e.g. environment).

So, what does it mean to be an ethical right-winger today and in the next decade?

Shouldn't there be loud and clear opposing voice to Trump overstepping historical boundaries?

When Trump declares emergency to expedite arms sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE or when he approves secret nuclear power tech sales to Saudi Arabia

When Trump urges US Fed to cut interest rates

When Trump lifts sanctions on firms linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and when Trump conceals face-to-face encounters with Putin

So what I want to know is whether or not this is that unusual for someone in real estate.

The discussion on r/politics is myopic and the discussion on /r/tax lacks detail.

From the NYT article:

The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade.

Trump's statement/tweet:

“You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes....almost all real estate developers did – and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport,

Now my very limited understanding of real estate and taxes is this:

• You can depreciate the building but not the land
• Depreciation can be carried over multiple years
• When you sell property you can roll those proceeds into the purchase of another property, thus delaying income tax

Are those accurate? If so, do they explain Trump's taxes?

I'm thinking not (I suspect Russian money laundering is the real source of income). However, I have yet to read a good discussion of the specifics. Has anyone read such a discussion or have insight to add?

Main story from NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

CNBC's article about Trump's response:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/08/trump-defends-tax-tactics-after-nyt-story-says-he-racked-up-more-than-1-billion-in-losses-it-was-sport.html

EDIT: As an aside, I got into a wee bit of trouble because my wife's (very) small business lost money three years running. The accountant that I worked with informed me that if a business losses $ three years in a row, the IRS considers it a "hobby" and you can't subtract those losses from your personal taxes. Is that in play with Trump at all? If not, why not?

EDIT2: I'm going to answer my own question I think. I heard a good segment on NPR yesterday that addressed my question. You can read the transcript here: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/08/721552462/president-trump-defends-himself-against-report-he-did-not-pay-taxes-for-8-years

The bottom line is it's not so unusual but it doesn't exclude the possibility of him running his businesses poorly either. So I think it's not really what the headlines have made it out to be.

Another person said that s(he) can't form an opinion because s(he) eats meat, and it is almost the same thing. She feels it's wrong, but at the same time thinks it's prejudice against some religions if we are worried about a couple of animals and continue to kill millions just to eat.

I can agree and disagree with this point, but one thing being wrong doesn't give a pass to other things.

But if we agree that it's constitutional to sacrifice animals, then what certain religions do to women (or any person) should be at the same level.

That's why i disagree at the end. It shouldn't be allowed, period.

The animal being sacrificed didn't chose to be there, nor the human being mistreated.

What are your opinions? Can someone point what i'm thinking wrong here?

PS: Sorry for my poor wording because english is not my first language. I wanted to know the opinion here about morals or what is right or wrong, not the law itself. Of course that any discussion on that is welcome too.

Personally, free speech to me means that while platforms like Facebook and YouTube are not required to host it, if they so choose to host it they should be able to do so. Speech should not be restricted because it is offensive or because it is viewed as immoral. This applies doubly so to political speech, which terrorism is the most extreme form.

In 2016, I was an ardent supporter of Bernie. But come the general, I voted 3rd party, because I was "Bernie or Bust." Many people accuse me of indirectly voting for Trump, allowing "the worst thing ever" to happen (esp since I'm in a swing state that went Trump). But here's the truth as I see it: Voting Democrat regardless of candidate, with their only qualification being "Not Trump," will only increase the USA's slide (deeper) into fascism.

The reality I see is that even if Trump had never entered the 2016 race, 90%+ of the policy, judicial appointments, and everything else that he has done since being elected would be identical no matter which "R" candidate won the race, because all of these things are exactly what the GOP has been doing for decades. In that regard, I consider Trump more favorable than any other R candidate, because he is at least failing to do his "real" job: Hiding fascist, imperialist policy behind a charismatic smile and some clever words.

Ultimately, this is the reason why I don't generally support Democrats either. Hillary's policy wouldn't have been as immediately destructive as the GOP agenda, but it also would not have stopped the march towards fascism. I voted my conscious in 2016, and will do so again in 2020. I just hope there are more people willing to do the same this time around.

I like to picture that the government of the USA is digging a hole. With every shovelful, we're sliding ever closer to a fully authoritarian fascist regime, and the destruction of our planet. While Trump (and the GOP as a whole) has been calling in for backhoes and drills to speed the process....as far as I can tell, only two candidates in the 2020 primary are calling to stop the digging: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. At best, the other candidates are conveying messages akin to: "We need to compromise with the GOP and maybe slow down the rate at which we allow new backhoes to be brought to the pit."

In my mind then, it makes more sense for 4 more years of Trump, than to allow another center-right candidate for his opposition. Because at least Trump isn't able to pull off the charismatic smile and/or intelligent language that the Regan's, Bush's, Clinton's, and Obama's of the world have that allow terrible things to continue behind a cloak of "incremental change." It wakes up those who would otherwise tolerate these horrendous acts, and perhaps inspires them to become more active. By allowing for the political discourse to end with "Anything is better than Trump", it just permits the overall platform to gradually, but continually shift to the right.

And in my mind, it is the total death of real, dissenting voices in public discourse that is far, far worse than Trump winning another term could ever be.

I would love to hear if anybody else in this community has had feelings akin to what I've described here, as I've only been described as "insane" by most of the people I've discussed this with in person.

Someone posted an article on a subreddit I frequent. It was an extremely long and rambling hit piece against antifacism, littered with long academic words, written for a completely fake Sociology college in London. While checking the source's reputability, I found out that it's part of what is known as the Neoreactionary movement.

Here's an article about it: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/behind-the-internets-dark-anti-democracy-movement/516243/

Here's a more "fun" write-up from RationalWiki: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement

It's the most bizarre thing. They are basically a pseudointellectual alt-right who quite literally advocate for a monarchy. They are very secretive of their identities and write contrived "theses" under pen names (which, strangely enough, seem to be stolen from actual published academics both living and dead). They think they are a secret society attempting to overthrow existing governments, but in reality they are little more than a collection of fanfic authors.

Has anyone else come into contact with any of them? I am particularly interested if any of our Reddit moderators have anything to say.

Accelerationism: most of us have heard of it, few of us have read into it, and a fair amount of us have shared memes around it (gotta go fast), but have any of us formed substantial opinions on it yet?

With a variety of authors of various views each weighing in on it, like Mark Fisher and the notorious Nick Land (alongside his genderswapped, trans, slightly less-racist partner-in-crime, Nyx Land); it really does seem to be (slowly but surely) gaining considerable mindspace. Have any of you ever read any works in the genre you adored? If so, feel free to share!

I have stood on both sides of the abortion debate. I was raised conservative. Most of my family is conservative. But I became more liberal as an adult. In listening to both conservatives and liberals argue their side of the debate they have something fundamental in common: both are motivated by a desire to care and protect. Liberals want to protect the rights, autonomy and health of women. Conservatives want to protect the life of the unborn.

Both sides see the other as monsters out to attack. They think that because the other side works to thwart their efforts to protect, that the other side intends harm. But that's not true. Neither side wants to inflict harm. They may be willing to inflict harm to protect another, but that is not the same as wanting to inflict harm. Those who are pro-choice don't want to kill babies; they want to protect women and sometimes killing the unborn is the unfortunate cost. Similarly those who are pro-life aren't necessarily motivated by a desire to control women*; they want to protect the unborn and limiting some rights of women is the cost.

* This of course comes with some sticky caveats. There is plenty of sexism among many who are pro-life, and plenty of hardliners who think women should be subservient. And those people's sexism does color there views of women's reproductive autonomy. But there are also moderate pro-lifers who otherwise value the rights of women. You don't have to be sexist to be pro-life. Anecdotally the pro-lifers I know personally are in the latter group.

soundtrack for this post

The one thing people didn't learn regarding Trump and is repeating itself with AOC.

When you consider a politician stupid, it actually empowers them to be crafty. I think Trump would love for you to think he is stupid.

When you constantly attack a politician, you actually give them more followers. It's strange, but the Streisand Effect is real, especially in this Internet era.

The biggest weapon in someone's arsenal is to actually just talk about what they are for. Not attack their opponent and give them press. The rules have changed.

In the US the tax rate on the bottom 78% of earners taxes was less than 7%

England has a tax rate for the same income of 11.5%

The top 6% (Avg Adjusted Gross income 514,000) paid $840 Billion of the income taxes

The Bottom 49.1% (Earning less than 45k AGI) paid $97 Billion of taxes, but 27.4 Million Households filled for $66.7 Billion in EIC tax credits

If the taxes on the bottom 78 percent were increased 6% to a level similar to England the USA could have universal health care

The US Spends 3.4 Trillion on Healthcare.

Just 5% of Americans Account for 50% of U.S. Health Care Spending. So taking away the top 5% means the US spends about 5,500 per person. More than UK, but with a long term approach we can tackle that.

1. Saying no to covering all issues. See above. Total cost down to 1.8T

2. Accepting a tax increase

• Doubling the Medicare withholding will provide 500B
• Down to 1.3T

1. Reallocate state spending In 2015, state governments across the country spent a combined $605 billion on health care

• Down to 700 Billion

1. Increase taxes 6% across the board, like those of countries that provide healthcare. 600B in Funding

• Down to 100 Billion

1. 1/3 of expenses in 2017 was payable for hospital room rentals and 21% was to doctor's office billable hours

• Increase utilization to make hospitals & Doctors more efficient so cost can be cut
• 1% reduction in billable hours and room rates Down 100B
• Adjust pricing based on cost savings
• Repeat

If the US had higher taxes for gas we could have a better Infastructure. Using rough math we in 2017 underfunded the highway dept about $21.5 billion

• 40 Cents per Gallon vs 18.4 cents currently
• 33 Cents vs 17.5 cents for Highway maintenance at fully funded for at least the next 5 years
  * 1 Cent vs 0.9 cents Gas Safety and storage. Round it up to a full penny better saftey funds for better clean up
  * 4 cents a new Green energy tax for Green projects
• 2 Cent New Metro Projects tax

$5.5 Billion annual funding for projects, plus using funding not going to covering the underfunded highway dept means who doesn't want to announce a 10 year $250 Billion Green Deal Project. Get States to match it 40/60 and its a $600 Billion Project

$96 a person more and With this Major Cities can tackle major projects and Rural cities can apply for the Metro Funding. $1.5 Billion each state gets on average can be applied however but that's encouraging moving to a Green plan.

The U.S. combined gas tax rate (State + Federal) is According to data from the OECD, is the second lowest (Mexico is the only country without a gas tax).

The average gas tax rate among the 34 advanced economies is $2.62 per gallon. In fact, the U.S.’s gas tax a rate less than half of that of the next highest country, Canada, which has a rate of $1.25 per gallon.

We want to have the European advanced economy of our peers but we arent wanting to pay for it

I think we can all (generally!) agree that the right-wing is too easy of a target here, and most of us seem to be left-ish. So, waves, what's leftism currently doing wrong, or on track to start doing wrong?

First let me say that I long considered myself an independent until I realized I always voted Democrat a number of years ago because I find they best represent my interests, so that's my POV coming into this. I consider myself generally liberal on most issues with a few exceptions (gun rights, against college for all, etc)

Some observations:

• There was much there to please Republicans regarding the economy, etc
• There was much there that I'm not sure will play well with Trump's base: economic programs for women in other countries (Ivanka's influence?), criminal justice reform, lots of praise and visuals of black Americans including several guests, seeming to waffle a bit on the "wall" - I think he reduced it to fencing, did I get that right?, he stated several times he was in favor of legal immigration (something his actions have indicated otherwise and his base seems to be against)
• We're going to make peace with the Taliban - that was a jaw-dropping moment for me and I could tell from the reaction of the Rs in the crowd that it didn't play well with them
• Democratic women wearing white - smart political move and I didn't catch they did it during his first speech
• Pelosi was great to watch. Calm as a cucumber. She had several little subversive moments where instead of immediately sitting down after clapping she shuffled some papers or pretended to read something, sending a clear message of what she thought of POTUS' remarks
• Trump's anti-immigration push still isn't focusing on any facts...sigh.
• Russia investigation was only mentioned once or twice so he didn't succumb to temptation there
• I thought this was by far his best and most presidential speech
• The Rs at work were not impressed so I thought that was interesting

Regarding Stacy Abrams' response:

• I was totally disappointed
• She completely lacked energy and I had a hard time following along because of it
• Kennedy was 100x better in his response (even with the excessive lip balm)
• I don't have much else to say...it was bland

What did you think?

EDIT: Forgot he announced we're back in a nuclear arms race with Russia and China. And what was up with bringing in all of the Holocaust survivors and WWII vets? Was that a blatant appeal to the oldest members of his base or simply to recall the last "good" war the US fought?

I was thinking about the intersection of internet privacy and politics. You could even say I was having a bit of a mini-crisis. I like to think of myself as being pretty liberal, but I wondering how that fits into privacy. I was a little upset when I learned that Obama called Edward Snowden unpatriotic. I was kind of thinking that what he did was patriotic. Wasn't the NSA monitoring US citizens without warrants. That's morally wrong right? I think I would be pretty fine with the government monitoring someone if they had a warrant given to them by a non-secret court. I'm wondering if anyone here can give me some insight on this or if anyone else feels/has felt this way.

I was recently reading a reddit post about a 15 year old speaking out about climate change. In the comments there was a depressing amount of people dismissing her thoughts, opinions, and arguments simply because of age (and possibly because of the topic, but most stated reasons were age). In my own opinion I think young people should have just as much consideration given to their arguments as older people, if not more. They are the ones that are going to live in the world the older generations are leaving behind, and they want to make it a good place to live in. Admittedly, I am biased towards giving her a stage. I myself am still pretty young, especially here on Tildes. Maybe I only view it this way because of that. It's hard to tell, which is why I want some other viewpoints. Do you think younger people should be given consideration, despite their age?

If so, what were your previous beliefs, what did they evolve to, and what do you think has caused the change?

I am curious about your general disposition, but it would also be interesting to hear how that applies to specific policies.

I know that I might be opening a can of worms, so please allow me to start my post with a request to not create deep comment chains with back-and-forth unproductive discussion. Let's do it scientific-ish, and share our answers as top-level comments that expose our perception, thoughs and answer. If you disagree an answer, post a toplevel comment that exposes your view, instead of direct refutals to individual comments. I believe that's a more productive approach.

The right-left distinction in US politics is quite different to what it is in other parts of the world. Your right wing politics supports free speech for example, which in most parts of the world is an oxymoron. Could you explain me which ideas and stances are classified as right wing and which left wing in the US politics? Please read the above request before responding, I really don't want to start a political flame war and would be sorry if this turned into such a thing and became a burden on the mod(s).

I was recently watching this video about whitewashing in films, and it started me on a chain of thoughts that I'm slightly confused about. I'd like to get some alternative viewpoints on the matter, to hopefully clear up some issues I'm having.

In this video, the person presenting the opinion goes on to define whitewashing as:

[...] when Hollywood takes a character who is a person of colour in the source material, and casts a white actor for the final portrayal we see on screen.

This definition is good, and I agree with it. I can also clearly see how "Whitewashing" is a problem. However, later on in the video she says:

But this thing some people like to call "Blackwashing", is not a problem. It's not even a thing.

This is what I have trouble agreeing with. If we take the definition provided for whitewashing as a good source, how can "blackwashing" not be the opposite, where a person of colour plays a traditionally white character?

She provides some examples from comic book movies, such as Nick Fury from the MCU. I think that Samuel L. Jackson does a great performance as Fury in all the MCU films; I wouldn't cast any other actor for the part. However, I do have a problem accepting that "Whitewashing" is a problem, but "Blackwashing" is not. Logically, would not either one or both of these be a problem? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks about this, as I'm pretty clearly confused myself.

don't know exactly what to title this so that'll do. this is maybe a topic that could fit in ~talk but since it's something i came up with i'll put it here for now. move if necessary. i also don't know if it will "work" in the sense that it'll generate a discussion, but we'll see. never know until you try.

anyways, i am a writer at heart and to put a long story short one of the more interesting concepts i have going on is the social/political ideology of "homaitism", an ideology which at is core opposes property entirely and seeks to establish shared ownership of everything in a society. in a more Wikipedian serse, i think this best describes the ideas at play here:

[Homaitism is] the general term applied to a collection of far-left political philosophies and ideologies which, broadly speaking, reject the ideas of property ownership and sometimes small government. Many Homaitist schools of thought advocate the establishment of a large social net, the socialization of the most important services in a society (such as those of fire, police, healthcare, and so on), and the formation of a government which serves most if not all of the needs of its people. Others resolve that this is incompatible with a Homaitist society and suggest a more communal organization to society, in which groups are formed voluntarily on the basis of need rather than through the establishment of a state authority.

i think it goes without saying that there are some significant flaws in this idea, which is primarily what i want to explore. my main questions here that i'd be interested to hear people's responses to about this, if there's anything to be said (which maybe there's not? dunno):

1. what impression you get from that as an idea. far too utopian? far too many holes to be viable? impractical but not impossible? possible on a certain level? things like that.

2. are there reservations or flaws you see beyond the obvious questions of whether this is utopian or in any way viable?

other comments about the general idea here are also welcome (especially if you think some of these ideas are dumb and contradictory and/or would not work together at all). if people don't think this is enough to go off of i'll try to post some of the more detailed writings/sketches i have which elaborate on it more.

Before elections or just in general, what do you do to get to know people in power?

I personally use Wikipedia as a clear, quick way to learn about politicians from front to back. Also, near elections, I tend to do a quick web search alongside this to try and get a feel of what current events are saying about candidates, now that they're in the limelight.

This started as a sub-thread in a topic about possible contenders for the 2020 US Presidential race, but it generated enough interesting discussion that I thought it'd be worth spinning off into its own topic, particularly so we can include people outside the US who are ignoring or filtering out topics about American politics.

To expand on the questions in the topic title:

• What level of education should be required by law of every citizen?
• How should schools be funded? What role should taxes play vs. tuition paid by the student or their parents?
• Should homeschooling be allowed, and if so, how strict should the educational requirements be?

And if you want to go really deep:

• What is the purpose of education in the first place? Is it to make better and more productive workers; to create an informed electorate; to learn for the sake of learning?